AI at higher difficulties, kinda weak?

[Pocus]

Did you actually try to win on suicidal difficulty? Or that's theory craft: "I can reach 50 regions in size, so I conclude I have won" ...

There are mechanisms at higher levels called 'dynamic difficulty' and also 'Manifest Destiny'. The first is a progressive increase in bonuses if the player is in the lead. The 2nd is that some AIs have a MD rating, and if they fight against another AI without MD or a lower MD, they will trounce them more easily in battles.

Now indeed, the AI won't have the skills of even a decent player, that's why there are numerical bonuses. But you seem to be fine with that.

Prove me that suicidal is too easy, and we can crank it up! Lets say you achieve a 2 to 1 ratio in legacy and we can consider you can keep the lead and achieve 3 to 1...

[Ragu777]

Prove me that suicidal is too easy, and we can crank it up! Lets say you achieve a 2 to 1 ratio in legacy and we can consider you can keep the lead and achieve 3 to 1...

I am playing Selicid on suicidl, except maybe first 10 turns i am on lead with legacy - sometimes more than x2 from second, now 100 turn and i have 4500 leacy (and top CDR tier(8-12 position), second is rome with 3000 - he gain so much in last 30-40 turns but now he is in bottom cdr tier, and no more constantly in golden age, third is antigonids - but i took so much regions from them - so it will not be threat- now i go to east- for maurya

i think i can already win if my target would be only legacy -but i want to get 100 population in my capital, and just collect sweet hellenic/indus slaves(3 unrest - some already have ZERO after 2 decision for more slaves rights) from battles and buy slaves every time with decision

but if some big countries will gain more buffs because i have so much legacy(not just from difficulty) - it can be challenge

[MoLAoS]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and views of how the game works. Some have the wit to listen to others when they suggest your views are wrong.

but this statement isn't just a flawed opinion, its so wrong as to indicate you have little or no understanding of the game.

Based directly on comment by the devs. Unless you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Difficulty levels do impact the player but the AI itself isn't engaged in some grand conspiracy against you, unless progressive difficulty is on. Although that setting is a bit confusing since it doesn't explain what the game considers to be "winning".

forgive me for asking but have you read section 4.1 of the manual?

I hadn't. I see that it mentions Legacy as the lead determiner. This is a terrible metric since as a player I would obviously manipulate legacy at that point to make sure I wasn't in the lead. The various AI buffs act as I had thought, since they apply to all AI its not as damaging to the player as it would seem. Everyone gets a buff.

[MoLAoS]

Prove me that suicidal is too easy, and we can crank it up! Lets say you achieve a 2 to 1 ratio in legacy and we can consider you can keep the lead and achieve 3 to 1...

I am playing Selicid on suicidl, except maybe first 10 turns i am on lead with legacy - sometimes more than x2 from second, now 100 turn and i have 4500 leacy (and top CDR tier(8-12 position), second is rome with 3000 - he gain so much in last 30-40 turns but now he is in bottom cdr tier, and no more constantly in golden age, third is antigonids - but i took so much regions from them - so it will not be threat- now i go to east- for maurya

i think i can already win if my target would be only legacy -but i want to get 100 population in my capital, and just collect sweet hellenic/indus slaves(3 unrest - some already have ZERO after 2 decision for more slaves rights) from battles and buy slaves every time with decision

but if some big countries will gain more buffs because i have so much legacy(not just from difficulty) - it can be challenge

I just upgraded from easy/balance/experienced to the 5th level, and committed to no FoG2 cheat victories. The combat system is wildly different for auto-resolve. Essentially its not the same game at all. Mixing the two will not work out well since they are optimized for totally different unit comps. I'll see about suicidal next. Currently having no issues in my Rome game. Obviously its going to add a couple years to various aspects because even aside from modifiers using FoG2 was so much easier to win with no casualties and insane loss ratios of 0-7% vs 40-60% on the AI side. I see why medium foot is kind of a thing now, still weak but in relative terms its better because of the difference in optimization goals for combat.

Another key upside is that I'm rocking through the turns. Saving hours in the first 20 without the time commitment of FoG2 battles.

[loki100]

...

I hadn't. I see that it mentions Legacy as the lead determiner. This is a terrible metric since as a player I would obviously manipulate legacy at that point to make sure I wasn't in the lead. The various AI buffs act as I had thought, since they apply to all AI its not as damaging to the player as it would seem. Everyone gets a buff.

ok, so basically you don't know what you are talking about but are determined to do so very loudly?

[MoLAoS]

...

I hadn't. I see that it mentions Legacy as the lead determiner. This is a terrible metric since as a player I would obviously manipulate legacy at that point to make sure I wasn't in the lead. The various AI buffs act as I had thought, since they apply to all AI its not as damaging to the player as it would seem. Everyone gets a buff.

ok, so basically you don't know what you are talking about but are determined to do so very loudly?

I mean I figured it was legacy but I didn't read that section before. Regardless my point stands with legacy as the indicator. You are super bitter about something. Perhaps a cooling off period is in order. You sent me a salty PM earlier so clearly you are too invested in this.

[Ragu777]

Difficulty levels do impact the player but the AI itself isn't engaged in some grand conspiracy against you, unless progressive difficulty is on.

higher difficulty = less unrest per citizen for AI, and bigger anti-decadence modifair, also more money -because less need for administrative burden


also - i saw there dispute about province building strategy - i think 1 building per province (so only one of 3-7 regions) is better - because ideally you want build every building in one turn
because AI build in every region and don\t specialize it - player easy have better regions

[MoLAoS]

Difficulty levels do impact the player but the AI itself isn't engaged in some grand conspiracy against you, unless progressive difficulty is on.

higher difficulty = less unrest per citizen for AI, and bigger anti-decadence modifair, also more money -because less need for administrative burden


also - i saw there dispute about province building strategy - i think 1 building per province (so only one of 3-7 regions) is better - because ideally you want build every building in one turn
because AI build in every region and don\t specialize it - player easy have better regions

The AI gets buffs but its just as interested in killing other AI as you unless you have a Legacy lead. So the buffs don't help the AI too much in relation to the player. Things become more difficult for very large player empires, so world conquest becomes immensely difficult but very easy to ameliorate the impact on an empire of an appropriate size for you to win the legacy race. Especially if you play smart and hit the early win condition. Some nations would become more difficult, especially larger ones in the later stages of government I guess. Someone like Rome would be mostly unaffected.

[Ragu777]

The AI gets buffs but its just as interested in killing other AI as you unless you have a Legacy lead. So the buffs don't help the AI too much in relation to the player. Things become more difficult for very large player empires, so world conquest becomes immensely difficult but very easy to ameliorate the impact on an empire of an appropriate size for you to win the legacy race. Especially if you play smart and hit the early win condition. Some nations would become more difficult, especially larger ones in the later stages of government I guess. Someone like Rome would be mostly unaffected.

it help very well for AI, big start empires easy go to 3rd gov lvl, but they still don't like to build culture

[MoLAoS]

The AI gets buffs but its just as interested in killing other AI as you unless you have a Legacy lead. So the buffs don't help the AI too much in relation to the player. Things become more difficult for very large player empires, so world conquest becomes immensely difficult but very easy to ameliorate the impact on an empire of an appropriate size for you to win the legacy race. Especially if you play smart and hit the early win condition. Some nations would become more difficult, especially larger ones in the later stages of government I guess. Someone like Rome would be mostly unaffected.

it help very well for AI, big start empires easy go to 3rd gov lvl, but they still don't like to build culture

AI can;t build culture like a human can because they don't have human ability to metagame or predict attacks. AI is scripted. Can't analyze situation. Or maybe AGEOD is better than other devs and AI has a check for what surrounding nations condition is. Never know 100% without seeing code.

[Pocus]

Ah yes I forgot. The game is balanced with the FOG:E battle system, not FOG II.

[devoncop]

Ah yes I forgot. The game is balanced with the FOG:E battle system, not FOG II.

It is worth reiterating this point again.

You will NOT get a balanced challenging game of you play out battles from Empires in FoG2 unless you are a pretty inexperienced player of FoG2.

Empires is balanced for battles being played out in the Empires system with the FoG2 tie in a little post concept bonus added by the teams developing.

The Empires battle resolution system is not perfect (what system is?) but it is logical, fair, pretty deep once it is understood and works extremely well.

It is also going to get further fine tuning.

[Ragu777]

Ah yes I forgot. The game is balanced with the FOG:E battle system, not FOG II.

i play without FOG2 exports, it's not hard to win with right army composition

[MoLAoS]

Ah yes I forgot. The game is balanced with the FOG:E battle system, not FOG II.

It is worth reiterating this point again.

You will NOT get a balanced challenging game of you play out battles from Empires in FoG2 unless you are a pretty inexperienced player of FoG2.

Empires is balanced for battles being played out in the Empires system with the FoG2 tie in a little post concept bonus added by the teams developing.

The Empires battle resolution system is not perfect (what system is?) but it is logical, fair, pretty deep once it is understood and works extremely well.

It is also going to get further fine tuning.

You should be getting no unit loss battles with very low casualty %s even if you aren't an experience FoG2 player. Never played FoG2 before buying FoGE.

Having done FeGE resolution in my D5 and D7 games, it definitely slows you down. You can't run the kinds of cheaper armies you can if you use FoG2 resolution. At least for Rome. Legions are just so expensive and you can't conquer anything without them really except maybe in their penalty terrain provinces since they become equivalent to Alae or IF anyways. Kind of a pain to need full front lines of legions. Also minimizes the value of taking C&S. Those slingers are incredible in FoG2 but better off with Velites in FoGE. When I get around to playing a nation with static cost medium and heavy infantry will be interesting to see what happens.